Month: November, 2012

This article talks about the kinds of ethics that will need to be implented into America’s future techonological advances. The article begins by using the example of Google’s “driverless” car. The idea behind it? This car will eliminate the chances of human driving error, making to immoral for anyone to actually drive themselves seeing as though they will be putting the lives of other drivers at risk. The author moved off of that topic onto the topic of Robocops and robot soldiers — aka robots that will fight our own battles for us. Although I think these types of techonologies are so far beyond our generation, it is interesting to think about the ethical dilemas these techonologies bring about. Will the robots be designed to kill? Obey the laws of human morality? Believe in self-preservation? These are all big moral questions that would need to be addressed once the technology for these types of creations come about. But how do you artificially program morality?

Here is an interesting article from the NYTimes about a lesbian woman who is fighting to break the strong connection between gays and lesbians with the democratic party.

Cathy Smith, a lesbian Republican, argued “What good are gay rights if your country is falling apart?” After reading this article I find some validity in that statement. Although I think that the most recent election was an especially polarized debate when it came to social issues such as gay rights and women’s right, there should be no reasion why in the future a lesbian women should be ashamed of having conservative values and even vote Republican on that next ballot. This also hits on the age old issue of church v. state, but I believe that our country is adapting to the social evolution that is occuring in our country. I predict that the Republican party will begin to show less and less of an affiliation with the Christian conservatives in elections to come, and instead will begin to give into more democratic social positions.

Investigations are being held against the Christian evangelical preacher Billy Graham and other Catholic bishops for allegedly telling their religious followers how to vote. According to freedom of speech law churches are allowed to speak on any issue they please, but they run the risk of breaking the Internal Revenue Service rules. These laws state that no religiously affiliate group is allowed to promote or oppose a particular candidate. The punishment? The loss of billions of dollars in tax breaks.

I think that the Internal Revenue Service rules are definitely fair and logical. In my opinion politics are a lot more complicated than abortion laws, gay rights, or any complicated financial plan. I think that sometimes churches oversimplify things when they feel as though they have to pick the side that supports their core beliefs without looking at the bigger picture. Religion shouldn’t be affiliate with politics at all, so I think it is really sad that the two can make such a controversial mess out of social issues.